A “philanthropist” accuses two people of seizing 3.5 million dirhams of his donations

The Civil Court in Dubai rejected a lawsuit filed by a citizen in which he demanded that two joint individuals be obligated to pay the amount of three million and 543 thousand dirhams, and the legal interest at 5% from the date of the claim until full payment, along with fees and expenses.

The plaintiff stated, in his statement of claim, that he always does good deeds and donates to charities and sponsors orphans, noting that the defendants deluded him that they had direct relations with needy families and charitable organizations in one of the Arab countries, and offered him to deliver humanitarian aid to those families, including medical, housing and educational expenses, and sponsoring orphans.

He said that they provided him with a dedicated phone SIM card to communicate with these families, through which he received messages from international numbers using the WhatsApp application, which included expressions of thanks and gratitude from people who were said to be beneficiaries of his aid, which strengthened his confidence in them and prompted him to hand over to them the seized funds in the form of cash and checks.

The plaintiff relied on the ruling issued in the case, which ruled in the first instance that the defendants be imprisoned for one year and fined them, jointly, with the amount of the amount and deported them from the state, with the civil case referred to the competent court, stressing that the act committed by the defendants harmed him psychologically and materially.

In turn, the first defendant appeared before the court and submitted a memorandum in which he requested that consideration of the civil case be halted until his appeal against the initial criminal ruling was considered before the Court of Appeal. The court responded to his request, until the appeal ruling was issued that annulled the initial ruling, acquitted him of what was assigned to him, and provided an official certificate of the finality of the ruling. The civil case was re-initiated for adjudication in light of what the criminal judiciary had decided upon.

After examining the papers submitted by both parties to the case, the civil court began the merits of its ruling by determining the legal rule governing the validity of the criminal judgment before the civil judiciary, based on the text of Article 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that “the final criminal judgment issued on the merits of the criminal case of acquittal or conviction shall have the authority to which the civil courts are bound in cases that have not been decided by a final ruling with regard to the occurrence of the crime, its legal description, and its attribution to its perpetrator.”

It also referred to the text of Article 88 of the Evidence Law, which stipulates that the court is not bound by the criminal ruling except in the facts that have been adjudicated and in which its ruling was necessary, and it is not bound by the acquittal ruling unless it is based on denying the attribution of the fact to the accused.

The court reviewed what was established by the judiciary of the Court of Cassation, which is that the criminal ruling has authority before the civil court in what was decided in a necessary chapter regarding the occurrence of the act, its legal description, and its attribution to its perpetrator, and that this authority is related to public order, in a way that prevents the re-examination of the same issue again, in order to avoid conflicting rulings.

She pointed out that by referring to the records of the criminal appeal ruling, it was found that he based the acquittal on the fact that the accusation was based on the statements of the victim and his son and the report of a consultant expert, while the accused argued that he had actually received the amounts but that he had delivered them to several entities and people in that country as humanitarian aid, and his defense was supported by a defense witness whose testimony the court was reassured about, in addition to the accused’s submission of receipts issued by people who decided to receive humanitarian aid.

The criminal ruling stated that the case papers lacked conclusive evidence proving that the accused did not deliver the amounts to those entitled to them, nor was the amount of the crime scene seized, pointing out that the consultant’s report on which the initial conviction ruling was based was the product of the documents submitted by the plaintiff himself, and a person may not take his own work as evidence to prove against others.

The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the evidence does not amount to certainty and certainty, and that the accusation is based only on transmitted statements that are not supported by sufficient evidence, so it ruled acquittal due to its doubts about the occurrence of the act and the lack of sufficient evidence.

In turn, the civil court confirmed that the acquittal ruling was based on insufficient evidence and doubt as to the occurrence of the act, and thus has authority before it, and prevents it from re-examining the issue of the occurrence of the crime of fraud or its attribution to the first defendant, considering that this is one of the issues on which the criminal ruling necessarily decided.